Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1535706" data-attributes="member: 18280">In a world where you can cast a spell and ask the gods?&nbsp; Well, assuming that the gods know, their clerics are likely to know.If you accept as a general principle that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, then there are a whole host of divination spells that you suddenly can't cast.&nbsp; The minute you say that &quot;these are physical laws, but with these exceptions&quot; you have re-written physics on a fundamental basis.&nbsp; To put the fact simply, you can either choose to have a world in which science is &quot;realistic&quot; according to our modern standard models -- which implies philosophical materialism -- or a world in which magic works.&nbsp; If you think you have both, you're kidding yourself.Sentient rocks?&nbsp; Sentient fire?&nbsp; I don't think so.&nbsp; In our scientifically plausible world, all elementals are out.Constructs?&nbsp; Better have working parts in there, my friend.Undead?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; Of course, you could have something alter the behavior of living things to make them seem like undead....&quot;Ah,&quot; you say, &quot;my campaign world uses real world physics.&nbsp; I've just added a few things, such as magic.&quot;&quot;Ah,&quot; I say, &quot;how can you add magic without perforce taking away an equal (or, more likely, greater) measure of real world physics?&quot;Fantasy worlds (as opposed to science fiction worlds), by necessity use another model.&nbsp; That model may include analogs of modern concepts (including particles and forces, theories, etc.), but it does not have to so long as it is consistent with observable &quot;reality&quot; within the confines of the game itself.&nbsp; Claiming that your elementals are somehow &quot;scientific&quot; in the modern sense is just so much handwaving, in my opinion.&nbsp; And handwaving is good in terms of speculative fiction -- so long as the handwaving is internally consistent it isn't so blunt or obvious as to interfere with enjoyment of the story.But it's still handwaving.&nbsp; And it's still not really science...just another form of fluff.Daniel</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 1535706, member: 18280"] In a world where you can cast a spell and ask the gods? Well, assuming that the gods know, their clerics are likely to know. If you accept as a general principle that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, then there are a whole host of divination spells that you suddenly can't cast. The minute you say that "these are physical laws, but with these exceptions" you have re-written physics on a fundamental basis. To put the fact simply, you can either choose to have a world in which science is "realistic" according to our modern standard models -- which implies philosophical materialism -- or a world in which magic works. If you think you have both, you're kidding yourself. Sentient rocks? Sentient fire? I don't think so. In our scientifically plausible world, all elementals are out. Constructs? Better have working parts in there, my friend. Undead? Nope. Of course, you could have something alter the behavior of living things to make them [I]seem[/I] like undead.... "Ah," you say, "my campaign world uses real world physics. I've just added a few things, such as magic." "Ah," I say, "how can you add magic without perforce taking away an equal (or, more likely, greater) measure of real world physics?" Fantasy worlds (as opposed to science fiction worlds), by necessity use another model. That model may include analogs of modern concepts (including particles and forces, theories, etc.), but it does not have to so long as it is consistent with observable "reality" within the confines of the game itself. Claiming that your elementals are somehow "scientific" in the modern sense is just so much handwaving, in my opinion. And handwaving is good in terms of speculative fiction -- so long as the handwaving is internally consistent it isn't so blunt or obvious as to interfere with enjoyment of the story. But it's still handwaving. And it's still not really science...just another form of fluff. Daniel [/QUOTE]

Verification